ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
God sets the number. When that number is reached, He's got that number. Sheesh.
He's very smart. But if they aren't saved, it won't be God's fault.
So there are decisions that God didn't know about before the foundation of the world?
Then there is only one cause. Whatever the first cause caused, is the responsibility of the first cause if it is exhaustively foreknown what the first cause will cause.
I think I've quoted you correctly. You say, and I quote, "Events occur because God decreed them". Would there be such a thing as an event of evil?
Here was what I claimed you believe: "Would you disagree you claim that God decrees evil according to the Settled View?" You sound like you want to say you disagree, but your quote says you agree.
I have not done this.
And yet you seem incapable of refuting any of them.
I've not done this either!
No duh!
I tell you what godrulz, if you don't want to be labeled a hypocrite, I'd stay away from accusing anyone of being irrational if I were you.
Resting in Him,
Clete
RobE
New member
That's right! And ultimate responsibility was taken up with the Cross! Now if you meant that Christ is responsible because He sinned, then you have a skewed and perverse sense of responsibility. Even though, He took responsibility for sin through giving His own life up as a remedy doesn't mean that He participated and sinned Himself. Whatever responsibility the First Cause had towards creation was satisified through the elimination of the penalty for sin.
And who's to say that God 'owed' anything to those He created. God is God, after all!
What does responsibility mean to you? How would God be less responsible for sin if He stood by and watched vs. foreknew what would happen and allowed?
If Jesus did not die, you are still in your sins.
You are reading more into this sentence than is stated in the text itself. There are a lot of thing that "into your hands" could mean.
Is it your belief that Abraham was in God's presence after his death?
The teaching of Scripture is clear. Jesus, God the Son, descended to the place of the righteous dead(Ephesians 4:8-10), which WAS NOT in the presence of God. The righteous went to this paradise precisely because their sin had not yet been atoned for.
Are you an annihilationist or what?
To die does not mean that one has been detroyed.
So be it!
I'm not kidding Lee! I will not be swayed by the teachings of men. You will either refute my position by the Scripture and/or sound reason or I will not be moved.
"Here I stand . . . I can do no other. So help me God" - Martin Luther
Resting in Him,
Clete
themuzicman
Well-known member
If the Spirit of Christ is the Holy Spirit, then did Jesus have a Spirit before the Holy Spirit came upon Him at his baptism?
Muz
Muz
Nang
TOL Subscriber
themuzicman
Well-known member
Nang
TOL Subscriber
lee_merrill
New member
This you know, exactly, how? I would say God intends for as many to be saved as possible--the Son of Man did not come to seek and to save the established quota...
If free choices cannot be known even by God, then this is still unknowable.
I believe he knows all decisions, such as knowing our prayers we will pray, and then "before they call, I will answer."
But Rob's point is pertinent, seeing what is imminent and not acting to prevent it involves you in responsibility too--as does knowing what might happen, and choosing to create--so Open Theists have this question to answer too.
lee_merrill
New member
We are discussing what it means to say Jesus died, not whether he did so.
It does imply his spirit did not die, though.
Yes, as was Lazarus (of the crumbs under the rich man's table).
Well, this is a disputable area, and an incidental point to the question of what Jesus' death might mean concerning his nature and spirit.
Agreed.
Why then did God appoint some to be teachers?
From morning till evening he explained and declared to them the kingdom of God and tried to convince them about Jesus from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets. (Acts 28:23)
They read from the Book of the Law of God, making it clear and giving the meaning so that the people could understand what was being read. (Neh. 8:8)
There is a place for this, but there also are indeed precepts of man that are like the Pharisees, so we must sift teaching, and teachers. Greg Boyd teaches, correct? You do too.
Blessings,
Lee
themuzicman
Well-known member
That's the best argument I've ever heard you make.
lee_merrill
New member
He had the Holy Spirit from the beginning--let's read the theology books please, people have considered such questions, and it's helpful to review what others have found and considered. So I believe the Holy Spirit was anointing him for service, but God is always a unity, even in the incarnation, even from Jesus' birth.
Blessings,
Lee
God purposed to have a people in Israel and the Church. He is more than capable to bring this about no matter how long or how much effort it takes. He does not have to know whether Tom or Dick will be saved before they are born to know that some will receive Him and some will not. Knowing the past and present exhaustively allows one to make some statements about the future in general or specific terms.
lee_merrill
New member
So all could not possibly refuse? Or all might repent, and then more than a remnant would be saved, contrary to God's statement:
Romans 9:27-28 Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: "Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea, only the remnant will be saved. For the Lord will carry out his sentence on earth with speed and finality."
A remnant will be saved? again, it came down to just Noah on earth once, and what if it did again, and that one person did not repent?
For when what is predicted is free will choices (i.e. what is predicted is choices themselves, and not results dependent on choices) then the Open View must say it cannot be sure.
Blessings,
Lee
RobE
New member
Of course I disagree with your analysis that Molinism is convoluted any more than libertarian freedom is.
Molinism is based upon a series of If-Then statements which result in mathematically calculating the 'thens' when all of the 'ifs' are foreknown. It's the same type of logic you use in figuring out the future. If A is true, then B will be true. If C is true, then D will be true.
What I think is overlooked is that 'If A is true', then A must be preceeded by a set of truths itself. In order for A to be true, then X must preceed it!
Even when considering the absurd idea of LFW, there must be truths which preceed it. There isn't a conscious at all if there isn't a person. There's no decision to make if there isn't a stimulus.
Molinism's basis is knowing and understanding the stimuli.....
1 John 3:20 whenever our hearts condemn us. For God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything.
Psalm 44:20 If we had forgotten the name of our God
or spread out our hands to a foreign god,
21 would not God have discovered it,
since he knows the secrets of the heart?
or spread out our hands to a foreign god,
21 would not God have discovered it,
since he knows the secrets of the heart?
Luke 16:14 The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus. 15He said to them, "You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of men, but God knows your hearts. What is highly valued among men is detestable in God's sight.
Acts 15:8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us.
....and our reaction to it. Even Eve was stimulated to sin by the serpent, and then Adam, who was not fooled, was stimulated by the environment. God's initmate knowledge of our hearts combined with His intimate knowledge of our environment leads uncontestedly towards complete knowledge of our actions.
Molinism was established to safeguard free will from the determinism of the Thomists which became the foundation for Calvinism. The central theme to Thomism is the system of Divine Decrees. Whereas the central theme of Molinism is its system of grace in which man is a (un)cooperative agent acting within his will freely(through acceptance or rejection of sufficient grace).
LFW throws everything out with the wash and doesn't explain where the 'liberty' of freeness comes from. It's a mystery which is more confounding than the compatibility of foreknowledge and free will ever has been.
This 'middle' knowledge that you speak of is where God is allowing a man to choose without a decree; the moment of cooperation or rejection. God's intimate knowledge of creation allows Him to know the outcome nonetheless. God knows us better than we know ourselves --- just ask Peter.
Rob Mauldin
What then is "Abraham's Bosom"? (Luke 16)
How is this disputable?
Ephesians 4:8 Therefore He says:
“ When He ascended on high,
He led captivity captive,
And gave gifts to men.”
9 (Now this, “He ascended”—what does it mean but that He also first descended into the lower parts of the earth? 10 He who descended is also the One who ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things.)
“ When He ascended on high,
He led captivity captive,
And gave gifts to men.”
9 (Now this, “He ascended”—what does it mean but that He also first descended into the lower parts of the earth? 10 He who descended is also the One who ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things.)
If it is agreed that death does not mean that one is destroyed then why did you bring it up?
Teaches of God's word, you moron!
Did you not notice that I quoted Martin Luther?
When one gets into the details of Molinism, it fails to include all issues relating to counterfactuals of freedom. It may talk about 'would' counterfactuals, but fails to account for may or may not/might or might not 'obtain'. The academic issues are very technical and include modal logic, etc. Boyd is readable for showing wrong assumptions in Molinism.
Cause-effect does not apply to moral creation like it does to inanimate creation.
Desires are not causative. There is nothing certain trillions of years ago to exhaustively know that I would type these exact words, including the spelling mistakes I just corrected. There is no antecedent, predictable condition to have middle knowledge when I am freely and creatively composing in real time. Remote vs proximal knowledge is another issue.
Cause-effect does not apply to moral creation like it does to inanimate creation.
Desires are not causative. There is nothing certain trillions of years ago to exhaustively know that I would type these exact words, including the spelling mistakes I just corrected. There is no antecedent, predictable condition to have middle knowledge when I am freely and creatively composing in real time. Remote vs proximal knowledge is another issue.
Your objection to my claim that God died was based on your presumption that death meant that one ceases to exist or is extinguished. If that's what it meant to die, I would understand and agree with your objection but it isn't. Death is merely a separation. Physical death is separation of your spirit from your body. Spiritual death is separation from God.
This does not go far enough. You seem to be missing the big picture here. What was Jesus doing by dying in the first place? Why was it necessary for Him to die? What was it that He was undoing on the cross? Was it not the fall of man that He was dealing with? Doesn't the problem go all the way back to Genesis and the fall of Adam in the Garden of Eden? Would you say that when Adam fell, did he die physically or spiritually? Both, right? How then would Jesus' physical death as a human male fix the physical and spiritual death of all mankind?
Well aren't we all damned before we get saved? You're a Catholic and so I know you believe in original sin and all that but even if children are not born in sin, which is what I believe, that is only because Jesus died on the cross, right? Can you point out a person that you know of who wasn't spiritually dead before his having put his faith in Christ for salvation?
The could you explain what you think it means for God the Father to have forsaken Jesus? (Matthew 27:46)
This seems to me like pure conjecture. I understand that this is what you believe but I've shown Biblically that Jesus DESCENDED to the place of the righteous dead (i.e. Abraham's Bosom or Paradise).
I'll ask you the same questions that I ask Lee. What is Abraham's Bosom? And what is Paul talking about in the following passage..
Ephesians 4:8 Therefore He says:
“ When He ascended on high,
He led captivity captive,
And gave gifts to men.”
9 (Now this, “He ascended”—what does it mean but that He also first descended into the lower parts of the earth? 10 He who descended is also the One who ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things.)
“ When He ascended on high,
He led captivity captive,
And gave gifts to men.”
9 (Now this, “He ascended”—what does it mean but that He also first descended into the lower parts of the earth? 10 He who descended is also the One who ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things.)
Again, this seems to me to be pure conjecture. The text does not say that he had not yet ascended bodily to the Father but simply the HE had not ascended to His Father. Your addition of "bodily" is only your theology being read into the text, isn't it?
WHAT?
Do you have ANY Scripture to back such an idea up? God the Father descending into Hell? Isn't that a bit of a stretch just to keep your Augustinian theology intact? Jesus, God the Son, is the one who died, not the Father and not the Holy Spirit. There is no Biblical support for any other position.
That is precisely what Jesus Himself says...
Revelation 1:18 I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore. Amen. And I have the keys of Hades and of Death.
Yeah! That's the gospel Evoken! Your entire spiritual life is dependent upon the death of God!
Meaning that God the Son suffered separation from the Father, not that He was destroyed or that He ceased to exist.
I don't care anything about the Nicene Creed. The Bible teaches me that God the Son died for my sin and that's what you're up against.
This is speculation at best. The fact is that the Bible does not explain the Trinity to us. There is a sense in which God is One, and another sense in which God is three distinct persons. How that works, we are not told in Scripture. My position is simply that in whatever respect God the Son is distinct from God the Father, He was separated from Him for three days. It is not my position that Jesus ceased being God the Son.
But it was precisely because of His divine nature that made that redemption possible.
You don't know this either Evoken! Are you going to tell me that you know enough about the nature of humanity and the exact nature of the incarnation to be able to say with certainty that humanity is fundamentally incompatible with the divine? Were we not created in His image for the purpose of being in the direct presence of God Himself? You simply have no basis whatsoever for making such an assertion. Neither is the idea that Jesus had two natures Biblical in the first place. Jesus was and is God become man.
Jesus was fully human and fully God. There is no contradiction there Evoken. It is your theology that teaches you otherwise, not the Bible.
This is nothing but theologians making things more complicated than they need to be. The Bible says that the Logos of God, God the Son, became a man. It's no more complicated than that.
What makes a person who they are Evoken? Is it not their soul/spirit? It isn't their physical body! I will survive my physical death with my memories and personality intact. My body influences who I am but does not define me as a person. It is my heart, my soul/spirit that defines who I am. And if that which died on the cross was merely human, it was not sufficient to pay the sin debt of the entire human race. If that were the case then it was not necessary for God the Son to become a man in the first place. God could have just as easily created a new, sinless version of Adam and had Adam Mark II immediately executed (before he had a chance to rebel) as a sacrifice for the race of Adam Mark I. No, God the Son became a man because what needed to be done could not have been done any other way.
Resting in Him,
Clete
- Status